Hi All, Thanks for your suggestion, I will update a V3 patch.
Best Regards, Bell Song From: Fan Jeff [mailto:vanjeff_...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:35 PM To: Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>; Song, BinX <binx.s...@intel.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Dong, Eric <eric.d...@intel.com> Subject: 答复: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter I agree to add one _MAX #define in library instance implementation instead of in class header file. Jeff ________________________________ From: edk2-devel <edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel-boun...@lists.01.org>> on behalf of Ni, Ruiyu <ruiyu...@intel.com<mailto:ruiyu...@intel.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:49:01 PM To: Laszlo Ersek; Song, BinX; edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> Cc: Dong, Eric Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH V2] UefiCpuPkg: Check invalid RegisterCpuFeature parameter On 12/13/2017 4:44 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 12/13/17 03:35, Song, BinX wrote: >> V2: >> Update function name, add more detail description. >> V1: >> Check and assert invalid RegisterCpuFeature function parameter >> >> Cc: Eric Dong <eric.d...@intel.com<mailto:eric.d...@intel.com>> >> Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.1 >> Signed-off-by: Bell Song <binx.s...@intel.com<mailto:binx.s...@intel.com>> >> --- >> .../Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h | 5 ++++ >> .../RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c | 29 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h >> b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h >> index 9331e49..fc3ccda 100644 >> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h >> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Include/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.h >> @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@ >> #define CPU_FEATURE_APIC_TPR_UPDATE_MESSAGE (32+9) >> #define CPU_FEATURE_ENERGY_PERFORMANCE_BIAS (32+10) >> #define CPU_FEATURE_PPIN (32+11) >> +// >> +// Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support. >> +// If you define a feature bigger than it, please also replace it >> +// in RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid function. >> +// >> #define CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE (32+12) >> >> #define CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL BIT27 >> diff --git >> a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c >> b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c >> index dd6a82b..6ec26e1 100644 >> --- a/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c >> +++ b/UefiCpuPkg/Library/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib/RegisterCpuFeaturesLib.c >> @@ -81,6 +81,34 @@ DumpCpuFeature ( >> } >> >> /** >> + Determines if the CPU feature is valid. >> + >> + @param[in] Feature Pointer to CPU feature >> + >> + @retval TRUE The CPU feature is valid. >> + @retval FALSE The CPU feature is invalid. >> +**/ >> +BOOLEAN >> +RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid ( >> + IN UINT32 Feature >> + ) >> +{ >> + UINT32 Data; >> + >> + Data = Feature; >> + Data &= ~(CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER | CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE_ALL >> | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER_ALL); >> + // >> + // Currently, CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE is the MAX feature we support. >> + // If you define a feature bigger than it, please replace it at below. >> + // >> + if (Data > CPU_FEATURE_PROC_TRACE) { >> + DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "Invalid CPU feature: 0x%x ", Feature)); >> + return FALSE; >> + } >> + return TRUE; >> +} >> + >> +/** >> Determines if the feature bit mask is in dependent CPU feature bit mask >> buffer. >> >> @param[in] FeatureMask Pointer to CPU feature bit mask >> @@ -444,6 +472,7 @@ RegisterCpuFeature ( >> >> VA_START (Marker, InitializeFunc); >> Feature = VA_ARG (Marker, UINT32); >> + ASSERT (RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid(Feature)); >> while (Feature != CPU_FEATURE_END) { >> ASSERT ((Feature & (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER)) >> != (CPU_FEATURE_BEFORE | CPU_FEATURE_AFTER)); >> > > The consensus thus far seems to be that we should not add a separate > _MAX macro for this purpose. I don't understand why -- in my opinion it > would be easier to update the macro in one place only. > > Now, I realize we have a library class header file here, and a library > instance. Those things are separate; it is conceivable that another > library instance is developed independently, and thus we should not tie > the MAX feature of *all* library instances to the same central class header. > > However, this separation is already being violated in this patch: the > RegisterCpuFeatureLibIsFeatureValid() function is an implementation > detail of the (currently only one) library instance. Thus, the lib class > header should not refer to it, even in a comment. > > So, I don't understand why we can't just add a _MAX macro. The central > library instance could use _MAX; all other (out of tree) instances would > not use _MAX. > I do not understand either:) But if the change doesn't expose more interfaces (_MAX in this case), I feel safe because we can change much freely in future. > Anyway, this doesn't mean the patch is not correct. > > Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com<mailto:ler...@redhat.com>> > > Thanks > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel > -- Thanks, Ray _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org<mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
